From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Herrera Alvaro <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2 |
Date: | 2011-01-23 16:50:10 |
Message-ID: | 10033.1295801410@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> We're trying to represent the pg_amproc entry here, and including a
>> bunch of details of the pg_proc entry to which it happens to point
>> seems almost better to be confusing the issue.
> Yeah, that occurred to me too. However, the CREATE OPERATOR CLASS
> syntax doesn't really draw a distinction between the referenced
> function/operator and its reference in the opclass, and I'm not sure
> users do either. So I don't want to give up the details of the function
> or operator. But sticking them at the end after a colon might make it
> clearer that the func/operator is referenced by the amproc or amop
> entry, but is not the same thing.
And yet ... and yet ... if you adopt the position that what we're going
to print is "amproc item: referenced procedure", then it's not entirely
clear why the amproc item description shouldn't be complete. The
argument that it's redundant with the procedure description gets a lot
weaker as soon as you look at them as two separate items. Ditto amop.
And having to add a lot of otherwise-useless code to suppress the
redundancy surely isn't very attractive.
So I guess I'm coming around to the idea that we want something not too
much bigger than Andreas' original patch, but applying to both amop and
amproc, and putting the operator/function description at the end.
Comments?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-23 17:06:43 | Re: ALTER TYPE 2: skip already-provable no-work rewrites |
Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2011-01-23 16:33:10 | Re: Perl 5.12 complains about ecpg parser-hacking scripts |